Of course not - a well-engineered product could never be profitable. They were being taught how to code, not how to be a lawyer, MBA, marketer...
Agree with this. I use Firefox simply because I don't trust for-profit groups and avoid them as much as I can. It's a shame, because Chrome is a pretty slick browser and would be fun to try, but even when I do, I'd have this horrible nagging feeling that Google is spying on me in whatever way it has been engineered to do (even if I'm using Chromium instead).
Though I still think Firefox is better from a technical standpoint anyways. The speed and memory footprint have improved drastically for quite a while, and I can't live without the extensions. It's what makes my browser MINE, and not Google's, Apple's, Opera's... and I don't think I'm missing any other important ones
There's an Omnibar extension for Firefox which you could install if you would like that.
I seem to remember reading a post by Mozilla (though I can't find it now) that stated privacy reasons for not doing the same thing in Firefox. In Chrome, everything you type (including pages from history or URLs) are sent to Google's servers, even if you didn't intend for that. I far prefer Firefox's awareness of user security, and I rather like that it allows you to scroll up and down to choose different search engines. I figure there are probably ways that Chrome implements this as well, but I like how Firefox does it.
It's sad because if you're a user with those needs, then that's your only choice in town. Imagine how you would feel if you had special needs which meant you could only use a single platform. Given the fact that Apple often positions themselves as if their customers have hordes of cash and nothing better to do with them than burn the entirety on Apple's vertically integrated platform, you can see how that would be upsetting to those who don't appreciate that.
'The agency, from top to bottom, leadership to rank and file, feels that it is had no support from the White House even though it's been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions,' says Joel Brenner, NSA inspector general from 2002 to 2006.
Maybe you haven't been listening to the reaction Joel, but NOBODY APPROVES of your stupid fucking agency and the stupid fucking things they do. Except perhaps your authoritarian, imperialist, warmonger friends in Congress (Feinstein and the like).
You probably won't realize why this is happening until you figure out how to admit how utterly fucking wrong you are. It's YOUR FAULT that your agency (and all other intelligence agencies) are hated because you decided to run out of control without a single shred of oversight. Don't blame this embarrassing atrocity on any one else.
but agency employees are privately voicing frustration at what they perceive...
Jeez, of all people, you'd think the ones working at the NSA realize that this can't be!
The problem is very simply that Americans aren't as involved in the democratic process as they should be (or they are and that they're simply too ignorant to understand how it's supposed to work). This is certainly not true of all Americans, but it is true of the vast majority, and what more is Democracy? Nothing more than the only thing the
Anyone looking at this case can see that each side can be classified into one of two groups.
On Google's side, we have companies that are providing new products and innovating in the realm of engineering. Google alone has produced (sometimes through acquisition, but has continued to nurture and develop) Android, Docs, Search (PageRank), Hangouts, Adwords, News, and tons more. People get angry at Google for killing products that they actually use (nobody complained when the Kin or WinRT went away). Likewise, on their side they have companies like Rackspace, Red Hat, Stack Exchange, and a host of others who are still real engineering companies, who develop and promote the adoption of real engineering products which people actually use.
On the other hand, you have dinosaurs like Oracle, Microsoft, EMC, and so on who have more interest in killing competing products via acquisition, lititgation, EEE, and so on. Oracle alone has probably killed more products than it has successfully brought to the market (think OpenOffice and OpenSolaris, there are probably many more). And when they do try to innovate (think of all of Microsoft's failures for example), they fall flat on their face because they don't understand progress or real, sound engineering. But they're the first ones to jump into patent and copyright suits. Microsoft makes more money off Android than they do off their failed mobile efforts. They're not in the business to profit off progress - they're in it to profit off killing others. Google is by no means a saint in this respect, but they're certainly not pathological killers. Companies in this group are just parasites, sucking money out of the industry through shitty developers (shitty because they build upon these companies' shitty products), or through legal or business means including litigation, extortion, bribery, and conflict of interest.
Nothing will stop the companies on Google's side from continuing to innovate and do good in the world with the services they provide. But the courts will decide here whether they're strong enough to support them, or if they want to chum up with the dinosaurs and fight the good fight against continued progress and innovation.
Use an aluminum foil antenna to direct microwaves to any given pole and that should cause sufficient interference to break this little scheme.
I wonder how long before those animals resort to oding something like this... in the name of profit...
Yet another consequence of a media industry that cares more about its profits, ratings and mindshare, than reporting hard facts as they really are.